Actually, for the sake of procedure, the vote will remain open until 20000UTC Feb 13, as per
the original call. As it stands now, however, Sim’s -1 represents a veto.
Greg.
On Feb 12, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Greg Trasuk <trasukg@stratuscom.com> wrote:
>
> OK, fair enough. I’ll close this issue and open another one that just makes sure the
jars aren’t in the source distribution (that _is_ an Apache requirement) without adding
Ivy.
>
> In general, though, as we move to the build structure discussion, are you OK with using
dependency management. I’m not big on putting other people’s software distributions into
our source repository, especially if we’re going to see more dependencies as time goes on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Greg.
>
> On Feb 12, 2014, at 10:38 AM, Simon IJskes - QCG <simon@qcg.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 12-02-14 15:56, Greg Trasuk wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Sim,
>>>
>>> -1 votes need to have an explanation, for the archives.
>>
>> If it is so important to revise the build system, to me it is not, but you care a
lot about it, we should view the problem on a wider scope. Why not put the effort in, to revise
our whole build system?
>> I think it is important not just change things for no reason, as this is how i view
the migration to ivy. I know ivy, i use ivy, but i cannot see this as a improvement to river.
>>
>> Let me know if this is unclear to you, or that you do not agree with me. The one
is solvable the other isnt.
>>
>> Gr. Simon
>>
>>
>> --
>> QCG, Software voor het MKB, 071-5890970, http://www.qcg.nl
>> Quality Consultancy Group b.v., Leiderdorp, Kvk Den Haag: 28088397
>